Viewpoints of Sanaii and Molana about the Villain

After investigating the viewpoints of Mo’tazeleh, Asha’ereh, Imamieh and some philosophers about the Villain, this article tries to explore the ideas of Molana and Sanaii and it is shown that they considered this issue with regard to their relativist subjectivity. These two thinkers also believe that the principle of “integrity and unity”, the “entirety of universe” and “unity of oppositions” are all according with “wisdom of God and benefits of agonies” and finally, though accepting philosophical and discoursal controversies, they propose Love as the final solution to all problems and controversies. Since everything belonging to Beloved is good in Lover’s eye and the latter is transformed into the former, then there is no duality which objects to the system of Creation and pessimism grows in the land of duality. This is the place that mystics’ and philosophers’ ways are separated from each other. The difference between Molana and Sanaii is, on the one hand, in the manner of stating this issue and, on the other hand, the rule of “Compensation” for relieving agonies and sadnesses which is stated by Molana but Sanaii has said nothing about it. Also, they both believe that most difficulties can be solved if someone does his best. Thus, the most optimistic view about Being and superficial Villain belongs to mystics among which is Sanaii, and Molana, who is at the climax of Love and Unity, has a view based more on mysticism than philosophy. But their tendency is more towards rationalists than Ash’ariat. They both taunt Mo’tazeleh, though there may exist some similarities between their ideas. Keywords: